ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 149499. September 24, 2001]
ESTATE OF MENZI vs. SANDIGANBAYAN et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 24 2001.
G.R. No. 149499.(Estate of Hans M. Menzi vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan [Foourt Division], Manila Bulletin publishing Corporation and Emilio T. Yap.)
At bar is a special civil action under Rule 65 filed by petitioner estate of Hans Menzi which seeks to annul and set aside the resolutions of public respondent Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division dated April 2 and June 28, 2001 which denied petitioner's motions for reconsideration.
Petitioner, a juridical entity which administers and manages the estate of the late Hans M. Menzi, in its motion alleged that there being common questions of fact and law in G.R. No. 79126 entitled "Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government, et al., and Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0022, the two cases must be consolidated and private respondent Bulletin must be impleaded so as not to render inutile any decision which the court may arrive at eventually with regard to the cases before it.
The motion was opposed by the Solicitor General for the reason that the same was a mere reiteration of petitioner's earlier two motions to implead Manila Bulletin as a formal party, which motions were denied by the respondent court on June 19, 1997 and November 26, 1998, respectively. In denying both motions, the Sandiganbayan held:
This Court, in its Resolution dated June 19, 1997, has already ruled that the Bulletin Publishing Corporation is not an indispensable party in this case. The said ruling was made when this Court denied defendant Estate of Hans Menzi's "Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial to Require the Bulletin to Answer Defendant Estate's Third Party Complaint" dated October 29, 1996; and the said resolution which contains the said ruling is already final. Defendant Estate's subject Second Motion to Implead the Bulletin as a Formal Party is untenable and misplaced, it is for the herein plaintiff and not defendant Estate o Hans Menzi, to state is its complaint why a certain or person who is unwilling to be a co-plaintiff should be made a defendant (Section 10, Rule 3, Rules of Court).
Indeed, this case has been pending before this Court for more than years since the filing of the original complaint on July 29, 1987. At present, the plaintiff has already presented its evidence and its now the turn of the defendants to adduce their evidence. . . .Hence it is now too late for defendant movant estate to insist on its subject Second Motion to implead the Bulletin as Formal party. In other words, the said second motion is unwarranted and will unduly delay the scheduled trial in this case.
In the majority Resolution of this Court of January 20, 1995 we had occasion to make the following observation which is relevant to the present incident at bar, to wit:
By praying for the inclusion of the 3rd issue, movant defendant Estate of Hans M. Menzi would want this Court to determine whether or not the entire 214,424.5 Bulletin shares of stock involved in the case entitled "bulletin vs. PCGG, et al.", 160 SCRA 716, are ill-gotten wealth or are owned by the private parties to this case or otherwise. However, it is not disputed that Jose Y Campos is not even a party defendant in the case at bar. It should be noted from the Second amended Complaint that Cesar Zalamera was a co-defendant in the original complaint, the records shows that here is no cross claim against him. Likewise there is no private party which has filed, up to the present, any petition for intervention, much less a third party complaint against Jose Y. Campos, Cesar Zalamera and the PCGG, for recovery of the 46,620.5 Bulletin shares which Cesar Zalamera through his attorney-in fact, Bienvenido Tan III, assigned to PCGG, or for the recovery of the value of said Bulletin shares of stocks.
xxx
xxx
xxx
It is Our view therefore and We so hold that movant defendant estate of Hans M. Menzi cannot seek to recover in this case, the said 46,620.5 bulleting shares of stocks registered in the name of Jose Y. Campos for the reasons that Jose Y. Campos: (1) voluntarily surrendered the same to the PCGG and (2) was never a co-party defendant in the case at bar. For the same reason, WE see no need or reason to determine any further the true ownership of those particular shares of stock.
The denial of its motion for consolidation was also premised on the above-mentioned resolutions which ruled on its motion for intervention.
Respondent court, in its now assailed resolution of June 28, 2001 stated that it found no new argument to persuade it to depart from its previous ruling, it appearing that the motion for reconsideration was only a futile attempt to confuse the issues and to attempt to attain, what petitioner failed to achieve earlier, that is, the inclusion of Bulletin Publishing Corporation as indispensable party.
Hence, the instant petition.
In essence, petitioner alleges that respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in refusing to consolidate for joint trial and judgment the case remanded by this Court in G.R. No. 79126, and SB Civil Case No. 0022 still pending trial which is a case for the adjudication of the ownership of sequestered Bulletin shares. It is strongly contended that since both cases have common questions of facts and law concerning the present and legal ownership of the sequestered Bulletin shares, it is proper to consolidate the two cases to avoid multiplicity of suits and appeals.
Petitioner contends further that the omission to include Bulletin as an indispensable party would produce a resolution that is ultimately ineffectual. It asserts that Bulletin will be directly and materially affected by any resolution of by respondent court in regard to the ownership issue of the disputed shares, for which reason, intervention and consolidation would be proper.
The petition must fail.
Section 1 of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Consolidation. - When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
While Section 1 of Rule 19 provides:
Section 1. Who may intervene. - a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceedings. (2[a], [b]a, R12)
A perusal of the aforequoted provisions reveals that the matter of allowing intervention and consolidation are not mandatory but merely discretionary in the court. Such being the case, the exercise of this discretion is lodge in the Court and denial of a motion therefor does not signify abuse of discretion. The grant of these motions is not a matter of right and cannot be compelled, absent any showing that the rights of the parties cannot be protected and ventilated in a separate proceeding.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that for certiorari to prosper, grave abuse of discretion must be too patent as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner. This does not seem to be present in the case at bar. Moreover, it should be stressed that certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction and not to correct errors of judgment or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of a judge.
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error, petition is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
